jetcat
-
Posts
133 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jetcat
-
-
1 hour ago, Riedquat said:
I don't follow what you're saying there I'm afraid.
How useful is a model predicting the long-term state of an airspeed indicator in a stalling aircraft? I don't think economic models predicting indicators rather than the end states are useful for anything other than relatively stable conditions. Brexit, even just a Brexit vote, is too big a change to usefully predict GDP as a result of it.
-
21 minutes ago, Riedquat said:
The issue isn't that it's "just" a model, it's whether it's a model that's been adequately tested, both against simulation and when applied to the real world, and whether the locations and sizes of its uncertainties have been considered. I think the complaints about models are being directed at the principles of them at all rather than flawed methodology. I'm not saying that anyone's come up with economic models that are any better than staring at tea leaves but neither do I think that economics is fundamentally unmodellable.
Would you agree that a valid model predicts a definite end state of a given system with some probability rather than the position of given synthetic indicator (i.e. GDP)? Will the latter only have any meaning so far as the end state is more or less the same and therefore given indicator's composition still unchanged and that it gives any information about the state of the system (see GDP in countries with command- or lots of black economy)?
-
7 minutes ago, Kosmin said:
People change their minds as they get older, but they don't always turn into their parents. Otherwise, how do you explain changing attitudes over time? (e.g. Why didn't young people in the early 20th century grow out more liberal attitudes and reproduce Victorian values?)
Interestingly, I think a lot of people arguing that the young will become as anti-EU as their parents and grandparents also argue that they are too brainwashed to ever come round to see the problems with the EU!
Even simpler; people change their mind over time under various influences, mostly change or threat thereof in personal circumstance or peer pressure (including negative, i.e. "I'm NOT with that lot"). The pace of change slows down for most as they get older. The only ones who don't change are extreme ideologues or religious zealots and they are a very small minority for whom it's the outside world that must change. They are, however, the most vocal and most noticeable.
Pro- or anti-EU is an ideological position and has little to do with facts; one can find plenty of proof for either pre-conceived opinion as with any other infinitely (for human) complex thing (see individualism vs collectivism or climate change). It is therefore only threat of change in material circumstance or peer pressure that forms opinion on Brexit outside religious fanaticist or political partisan circles. Whoever claims to have _informed_ opinion either way suffers from hubris and claims divine knowledge.
I think the key driver in the whole Brexit thing (as well as most things these days) is British people individually and collectively trying to answer the question of their values and identity.
-
1 minute ago, jonb2 said:
I have no idea what you are talking about?
What are you trying to say?
If I was to guess, you are saying climate denying billionaires, ex-Eton and Dulwich schoolboys, media press barons are racists? Shame on you.
True again, especially the bit about the press. Not sure what's you point about climate deniers, is climate some sort of religion?
-
2 hours ago, jonb2 said:
It's been a license for all the racists to come out of the woodwork and show themselves.
It's not going away now.
I agree with you on that. I thought liberal elites just despised workers as class regardless of their skin color and didn't realize the root of their prejudice was racism with a healthy dose of ageism until the morning after Brexit vote.
-
56 minutes ago, Riedquat said:
Based on but still arbitrary. You could make a completely different set of units based on the same universal constants.
Especially true given that units that turned the US into manufacturing superpower and sent man to space were not Imperial, but US customary units defined as derivatives from metric units since 1893. That allowed making of consistently precise gauge blocks for tool calibration and therefore distributed manufacturing, which ultimately made US industry dominant for many decades. The blocks were made in Sweden )
-
Polarized society in an illusion, one narrow social media bubble talking to another (and occasional loony stupid enough to turn their frustration into action). In my 100% remain surrounding the prevailing mood among people older than in their 20s is quiet resignation and dark jokes. I suspect the same is true for predominantly leave places.
-
Why is it always the extreme options of either giving the existing NHS more money to waste on private/public partnership and inefficient spending or go full robber-baron-pharma, US-style? How about lots of endless possibilities in between, from efficiency saving and technological solutions to various combinations between self- and state-funded healthcare?
What does general human inability to effectively manage overly complex centralized entities (see pretty much everything in the USSR for example) have to do with Brexit (other than the EU drifting towards excess complexity and centralization and failure due to that)?
-
On 08/01/2019 at 14:23, Dorkins said:
Under communism families were given homes for free. There was no rent to pay. That's why property ownership is so high in the ex-communist countries.
Under capitalism we are free to borrow a huge sum of money from whichever banker we want and spend a lifetime paying it back in order to keep a roof over our heads. Yum yum, delicious freedom.
You were given prison sentence for refusing to work for living.
You also had to wait for up to 30 years to be allocated an equivalent to 1970s high-rise council flats and live in a shared room in the meantime, often with family and children. An alternative was to choose your employer wisely (so far as you had freedom to) or bribe an official.
On a typical worker's salary, your utilities percentage-wise would be similar (20-30%) to paying rent.
If the current housing benefit recipients are happy to go for it as opposed to what they have now, who am I to object?
Of course, in our future glorious socialist Britain everything will be perfect and real socialism was never tried.
-
59 minutes ago, kzb said:
I've been reading about Cultural Marxism recently. I know it is classed as a conspiracy theory but it all fits with what is going on with Labour (in fact all parties really), the BBC and other MSM.
Not according to the majority of social science courses you can take these days )
I don't believe there's a secret cabal (or more than one) controlling the social groups drone-like by feeding to them the cultural narrative as per constructionist social theories. What seems to be happening is the result of takeover of English, social sciences and humanities by neomarxists/constructionists which is the first indoctrinated generation having entered workforce in media, tech and government. They seem to be at the moment the tactical allies of the pro-globalist majority of the elite, financial and cultural.
-
2 hours ago, tomandlu said:
AFAIK it was, in terms of health and leisure hours, the best lifestyle. Agriculture brought with it a load of responsibilities and problems that just hadn't existed before.
Except you have bad luck hunting for a few weeks and die (depending, of course, on the particulars of climate). There's a debate over advantages and disadvantages of either way of life and those who insist on better health and longevity of hunter-gatherers tend to be rousseauists or those of a Marxist persuasion (I certainly was indoctrinated into that at the uni, which of course does not mean that this opinion is wrong). My current view is that agriculture gave those adopting it a better experience in a world where no life was particularly pleasant or trouble-free.
Average life expectancy at birth stood at about 25 years for a very long time for all walks of life and is about the same for modern primitive tribes because of very high infant and child mortality. Violence does not help but its effect pales compared to the former.
-
On 01/01/2019 at 23:57, Saving For a Space Ship said:
Councils ‘ripped off’ by private landlords, experts warn
New figures reveal English councils spend almost £1bn a year on temporary housing
Funny how Guardian no longer opens comments for this sort of articles.
-
The argument to restrict the welfare is at least an effort to keep it.
The endless moaning about poor victims of structural oppression needing more money is a way to implode it.
Ironic that Guardian et al will be the reason everyone else is screwed along with freeriders and fraudsters.
The same goes for NHS.
-
To give it a bit of a twist, let's test the idea of a two-tier social housing.
One tier is owned and operated by local councils, with close to market rates for the area, but some built-in incentives on which further, longer contracts, greater security and a mechanism for the tenants to coupe with temporary unemployment, say, up to 6 months. Also, annually compounding discount for maintaining the area around their house and communal areas and absence of any trouble and noise, say, up to 50% of rent paid. Persistent anti-social behavior and complaints from neighbors will mean first increase in rent and then either open market tenancy or tier 2.
Tenants lose certain degree of freedom in exchange for lower rents in a nice neighborhood. Also, parents will have to discipline their children in order to avoid losing money and tenancy.
Tier 2 is paid for entirely by the taxpayer, jointly operated by councils and state; ultra high density dormitory-type temporary housing built on cheap agricultural land outside towns or on converted industrial estates, few stories high, with free bus service to the nearest town centre each morning and evening. Every floor would be a corridor with rooms (effectively very small studio flats), each with a toilet and some rudimentary cooking facilities, shower and some communal areas for cooking and socializing. This is to keep the roof over people's heads while they sort themselves out.
Now, every 6 months (or sooner if the neighbors complain) the tenant is moved out of their room to the other block on a different estate and the room is completely cleaned and maintained, with choice to move back only if neighbors agree to have them back. If a tenant keep their studio in a perfect nick, they get to stay for another 6 months.This way only beneficial social connections persist and constant maintenance keeps the block from turning into truly terrible experience for everyone involved even when an anti-social person lives nearby for some limited time. Said person will thus be transitioned from block to block every once in a while while those who has to live next to them know that the problems will end in a few weeks. Drug users will lose contact with their dealers, those who lack discipline to maintain their living environment get to go to a clean room every few months and maybe decide to change their attitude; people forming friendships and connections will improve behavior to stay in the same block.
Tenants there lose a good deal of freedom of choice but get to live relatively rent- and trouble-free and sort out something better for themselves. Much as I dislike limits on freedom and enforced social engineering, there seems to be some amount needed to incentivize people to stop hurting themselves and others...
Of course, there are multiple problems with this arrangement, so consider this a conversation-starter.
-
16 hours ago, Sancho Panza said:
Think harley's decline is more of an age thing.Apparently their biggest customer is 45+ age group.
Young guns buy the decent Japanese bikes,the discerning middle aged biker probably buys BMW and the person looking to create a large hole in their pocket buys an overpriced/overhyper/over here Harley.
I'm no biker though.iirc @Greg Bowman or anyone else who uses motorbike,might be able to enlightenWhen I was a kid Harley were cool.
I like cruisers and used to commute on one for 4 years to Central London every day.
The quality of Harleys have improved in the last decade. I wouldn't mind one but anything decent is too expensive and cheap Street 750 impressed me with the crappiest gearbox I've ever seen on a new bike.
I'd take Yamaha Bolt over Sportster as an everyday ride.
-
1 hour ago, jonb2 said:
Social cohesion now is badly splintered by successive government policies - Brexit being the final nail. I am not sure we will ever get it back.
Nostalgia is a weird thing though, people always think the past was better - it's a human thing.
Not for me; things were pretty rubbish where I grew up. But again maybe bad memories stick.
The demise of social cohesion is a feature of any country with heavy immigration from ancient empires until now. Probably also has reverse correlation with wealth and size of the unit in question, from what I see. People stick together in small poor places with low immigration, far from central controlling authority.
-
3 minutes ago, fru-gal said:
I think a lot of younger people will be looking to get out of the UK after Brexit. Not so much the old (who are the main demographic who voted for Brexit). I think the UK was going down before Brexit but it's certainly doubtful that it will improve peoples quality of life.
It went down a good deal in terms of opportunity and freedom and a a bit in terms of law, order and social cohesion during my time in the UK (since 2005). Whether it has anything to do with EU membership, I'm not sure, but it does have a lot to do with immigration in general.
I know a few Eastern Europeans who came over to the UK (some were working illegally before it was permitted) and what's rarely discussed is that there's an opinion among those particularly hard working that Brexit will be a good thing. Of course all of them have kept the EU passport (even though it's illegal in Estonia and Lithuania to have two) so they can always return.
-
51 minutes ago, fru-gal said:
I wonder if British passport holders will be saying the same thing about holding other passports once Brexit is done?
The only way this may happen is if Brexit is somehow stopped. Negative social consequences from disruption of peace if the elites wiggle out of Brexit will far outweigh any possible negative consequence of Brexit itself. They had also better make it look like success whatever the actual effect is.
On the other hand, Brexit avoided on a technicality, would be precisely the event required for a new political party to emerge, so who knows.
For the record, I voted remain and changed my mind recently.
-
50 minutes ago, Futuroid said:
Corbyn has had more electoral success than his last two predecessors and in face he increased Labour's vote share more than any leader since 1945!
I'm not a Labour man (yet), but he is an excellent campaigner - unsurprising really, since that's what he's been doing in one form or another for his whole political life.
He has his own weird sort of integrity. What's not helping is the track record of radical social constructionists in actual government.
Pretty much anyone translating liberal centrist message with integrity all their life would be a roaring success, but it naturally requires decades of consistency and being in politics strongly selects against it, thus leaving only fringe figures with any integrity left to them, and their baggage is too radical by the time they by some accident appear anywhere near power.
If I was a nonexistent Conservative overlord I would find an obscure MP not massively exposed yet and elevate them with very consistent principle-based uncompromising centrist liberal message over the next few years in visible opposition to current Conservative leadership but with their silent consent.
-
4 minutes ago, jonb2 said:
I think this is it Fred - and I also think that in the case of the UK - violence will be the catalyst
What I find extraordinary is the parallel universe the Tories have set up for themselves:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-branded-ignorant-claiming-11573298
Suits the political elites perfectly; both parties justifiably claim that the other side are hypocrites. This way, any side can respond to any objections to their policy by pointing to their opponent's hypocrisy and avoid honest discussion.
I would rather dismiss any claim of wealthy privileged elites to being social justice advocates and their opponents as lacking integrity in their claim to being social justice advocates as irrelevant and only discuss policy.
-
20 minutes ago, Futuroid said:
When you stuff the cabinet with no talents like Priti Patel and Boris Johnson, you really have to wonder how they've clung on so long!
Corbyn, McDonell and Abott, are of course the reason.
-
16 minutes ago, MarkG said:
There is no sane alternative. There isn't a single political party with any idea of how to deal with the transition to a post-industrial world, because that requires a massive reduction in government. None of them want that.
Or an authoritarian government, which is why all major political parties everywhere are way more authoritarian than they used to be 20 years ago. As an added bonus, all of the social unrest can be dealt with swiftly.
-
More state, more intervention, this time it's got to work.
For once, I find it hard to decide which flavour of authoritarian intrusion and control is more repulsive. Since I was born in the 1970s Soviet Union, I find kleptocracy and cronyism way better than the whole country knowingly lying to each other all the time out of habit or fear, but I can understand the attraction for those who did not experience the latter.
Advocating socialism can't be either honest, rational or intellectually mature. If you let a socialist anywhere near power, the only hope is they are a self-interested populist rather than an uninformed true believer.
-
6 minutes ago, Freki said:
Advise her in 10 years time, don't think about it now, you are clouding your future judgement. There is no point in guess what will stick and what each of those will be. I would not be surprised if a nurse becomes more paid than a doctor. Doctor are failures in diagnosis and I am sure they are easier replaced by robots than nurses are.
I have it on good authority that medicine as it stands now is a craft as much as science. Watson-like AIs will help a great deal, but unlikely to make a dent in doctors' numbers any time soon. Learning algorithms make decisions on the same small data samples as doctors. It may all of course change if we have a massive breakthrough in biology on the knowledge side or get much, much more data for learning algorithms to process (and then it may not help anyway).
Paralegals and anyone dealing with tight sets of formal known rules are screwed though. Drivers... I'm not sure.
Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.
in House prices and the economy
Posted
Stereotypes are ok full stop; you can't legislate thinking. Acting on one's stereotypes, however, is in some cases legally forbidden and a social taboo.
The current cultural war discussion of stereotypes is about the question whether a word can constitute a harmful action. Hypothetical progressives/authoritarians believe it can, hypothetical conservatives/libertarians believe it can not.
Since progressive mindset originates from Marxism, it is considered that social expression always has a component of power relationships. Therefore, when someone considered powerful (i.e. white males) stereotype someone considered less powerful (black women) it is a harmful action and therefore forbidden. The reverse is called "speaking truth to power" and is encouraged.